Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden by Robert Parry

An example of State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADS) - Conspiracy if you will ...

Does the name "Lee Hamilton" ring a bell? Could author Robert Parry be drawing the wrong conclusion here?

consortiumnews.com

Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
May 6, 2010

A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.

Lee Hamilton, then a congressman from Indiana in charge of the task force, told me in a recent interview, “I don’t recall seeing it,” although he was the one who had requested Moscow’s cooperation in the first place and the extraordinary Russian report was addressed to him.

The Russian report, which was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Jan. 11, 1993, contradicted the task force’s findings – which were released two days later – of “no credible evidence” showing that Republicans contacted Iranian intermediaries behind President Carter’s back regarding 52 American hostages held by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government, the so-called October Surprise case.

I was surprised by Hamilton’s unfamiliarity with the Russian report, so I e-mailed him a PDF copy. I then contacted the task force’s former chief counsel, attorney Lawrence Barcella, who acknowledged in an e-mail that he doesn’t “recall whether I showed [Hamilton] the Russian report or not.”

In other words, the Russian report – possibly representing Moscow’s first post-Cold War collaboration with the United States on an intelligence mystery – was not only kept from the American public but apparently from the chairman of the task force responsible for the investigation.

The revelation further suggests that the congressional investigation was shoddy and incomplete, thus reopening the question of whether Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 was, in part, set in motion by a dirty trick that extended the 444-day captivity of the hostages who were freed immediately after Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981.

The coincidence between Reagan’s inauguration and the hostage release was curious to some but served mostly to establish in the minds of Americans that Reagan was a tough leader who instilled fear in U.S. adversaries. However, if the timing actually resulted from a clandestine arms-for-hostage deal, it would mean that Reagan’s presidency began with an act of deception, as well as an act of treachery.

The Russian report also implicates other prominent Republicans in the Iranian contacts, including the late William Casey (who was Reagan’s campaign director in 1980), George H.W. Bush (who was Reagan’s vice presidential running mate), and Robert Gates (who in 1980 had been a CIA officer on the National Security Council before becoming executive assistant to Carter’s CIA Director Stansfield Turner).

Casey, who served as Reagan’s first CIA director, died in 1987 before the 1980 allegations came under scrutiny. Bush, who was President during the task force’s 1992 inquiry, angrily denied the accusations at two news conferences but was never questioned under oath. Gates, who was CIA director in 1992 and is now President Barack Obama's Defense Secretary, also has brushed off the suspicions.

Before I wade through another one of Parry's diatribes against the Reagan Administration, and specifically regarding the "October Surprise," could you give me a more specific hint regarding the relevance of this article?

I too find it frustrating to wade through a lot of discussion in order to find the one little nugget that may, or may not be there. I first became interested in this matter when Kevin Ryan expressed his criticism of Hamilton's handling of the "investigation". I have to admit, finding a clearly connected smoking gun has been hard in this instance. There were a sufficient number of conflicting accounts and apparently countering pieces of paper evidence that the perpetrators - assuming it happened - successfully covered their tracks.

It fits well into the larger complex of longstanding Bush Mob criminality; such as the JFK assassination(s?), drug running in Mena Arkansas, etc.

I found the most interesting part was about Edwin Wilson, who was freed by a judge after serving 20 years for selling stuff to Libya. It turns out that he was connected to the CIA, but the CIA disowned him and let him rot in prison, until the judge reversed in 2003 and freed him. That's all near the end of the article, so if anyone is interested in it, you don't have to wade through the entire article. Just google Wilson.

What is earthshaking about this article? Is it that Hamilton tried to cover something up before? So what if he is the coverup king? I think he has been on numerous coverup panels.